What was proposed and what was built.

The fact that those renders include people "hanging out" under the highway is such an indictment of mid-20th-century urban planning...

EDIT: Thanks for posting. Interesting stuff.
 
I know.

If that had been built, it would have quickly become an urban hell-hole with graffiti, endless unbearable noise and fumes from the freeways, squalor and hopelessness.

The planners had their heads buried far up in their asses, and absolutely no clue.
 
Ugh. I'm trying to figure out where these drawings are representing, with no luck except one.

Bridge at Riverway
View from Fens looking north

innerbelt4.jpg


landmark_center_today2.png
 
The vantage points, using today's streets are:

- The first drawing is on Tremont Street looking north, a few blocks south of Ruggles Street.

- The second drawing is at the western end of Melnea Cass Blvd, looking westerly towards the Ruggles T Station.

- The third drawing is looking west on Melnea Cass Blvd at its intersection with Harrison Avenue.

- The fourth drawing is looking southeasterly down the Fenway from Brookline Ave.
 
We already have an I-695 thread, though, so these should be moved over?

Map of proposed highways:

i-695-1.png


Approximate location today:

I695_today.png
 
Swap-out the plazas for grass in that proposal for Government Center, and you have the Seaport master planning document.
 
Then and now, Brookline Ave looking south, from next to the Landmark Center (notice MFA upper left-handed corner in both images).

innerbelt3.jpg


brooklineave_now.png
 
Proposed in 1962, and what we ended up with.

The 1962 plan for the area included elimination of all train service into North Station, elimination of the Lechmere Green Line viaduct, an elevated highway along the O'Brien Highway, and a full freeway interchange at Leverett Circle. Also, the Orange Line would have crossed the Charles River with a bridge instead of a tunnel.

proposedbuilt.jpg
 
Ron Newman said:
Would the trains have somehow all gone into South Station instead?
Click to expand...

Trains? HA! Remember this was around the time that the BRA was all hot and heavy to tear down South Station and build a stadium in its place. This was also a time when everyone at the GSD and intellectual planning circles was falling all over themselves over Sert's rehashing of Corbusier's garbage.
 
Ron Newman said:
Would the trains have somehow all gone into South Station instead?
Click to expand...

The MBTA's plan in the mid 1960's was to extend the Orange, Blue and Red rapid transit lines to the north, and terminate the commuter rail at the far ends of the extended rapid transit lines. Commuters would have transferred from the commuter rail lines to the Red, Orange and Blue lines out in the suburbs. North Station would have been closed. That is why the Orange Line north extension was built with 3 tracks, and only one track alongside it for a rail line to serve only freight cars.

The rationale for this plan was that North Station was at a poor location to serve downtown, and since commuters had to transfer to the T at North Station to get to work, why not have them transfer further out, and thus eliminate the duplicated rail service into Boston.

This plan was killed by the suburbanites who wanted to keep the one-seat commuter rail ride to downtown Boston.

As for the Lechmere viaduct being abandoned, the plan was to bustitute it with the bus lines from Somerville and East Cambridge continuing on to the T station at North Station, using the expanded O'Brien Highway, double decked and made into an expressway. At the time, the MBTA didn't like the PCC cars on the Green Line, and was looking at curtailing their use, also proposing to transform the Riverside "D" line into heavy rail.

All in all, the 1960's MBTA and BRA plans were extremely auto-centric with expressways everywhere, and rail service diminished.
 
Yeah, but the final "Scheme Z" or w/e it's called looks to have added more pavement than the 1962 plan!

The rails into North Station are too limited, aren't they? Does every train have to over the same bridge? Something has to be done!
 
The Big Dig project removed all overhead ramps from City Square in Charlestown, allowing it to be restored. The 1962 plan would have wiped out whatever remained of City Square.

The one thing I do prefer in the 1962 plan is that marina, a much better use of real estate than the Suffolk County Jail that stands there now instead.
 
BU's failure to complete this artfully compact plan and instead embark, in sprawling fashion, on a journey through tacky & faddish architectural styles is almost a metaphor for all postwar architecture and development in the US.

http://buquad.com/2012/04/30/the-campus-that-could-have-been/

The Campus That Could Have Been

By Allan Lasser | Apr 30th, 2012

The tower engraved above a School of Theology doorway. | Photograph by Allan Lasser

A ghost haunts central campus. The copper-plated specter towers above the doorways to the School of Theology and the College of Arts and Sciences. Recalling the ambitions of a young university, this phantom tower is the key to a campus that could have been.
The Alexander Graham Bell Memorial tower was meant to anchor Boston University’s unified Charles River Campus. It would house the University’s administrative offices and graduate school and cost a million dollars. The tower’s real value, however, was in its rich symbolism. Named for Alexander Graham Bell, who invented the telephone while on the school’s faculty, it would reify the school’s pride and anticipate a brighter future. It would cast long shadows over MIT and Harvard from across the Charles and forever alter Boston’s skyline, symbolically integrating the University with its city. It would also establish a trans-Atlantic connection with Boston, England, uniting the two cities with twin towers. The tower would rise from a brand new campus, unifying the school into an eminent whole.
Although Boston University was chartered in 1869, the Charles River Campus was not opened until 1938. Before the establishment of the riverside campus, the University’s different departments and schools were scattered across the city. The School of Law neighbored the State House, the School of Theology sat a few blocks west on Mount Vernon Street, and clustered at Copley Square were the administrative buildings and School of Liberal Arts. The school’s wide distribution became increasingly problematic as enrollment grew.
The interwar period was explosive for Boston University. In 1915, the school’s enrollment was 2,060. Five years later it tripled to 6,795 students1. The huge student body overwhelmed the older buildings. And, with students spread across central Boston, the school lacked unity and a cohesive campus culture. In 1920 the University purchased 15 acres of riverside property. From it would rise a grand campus. Planners and architects were consulted; the October 24, 1928 edition of the Boston University News2 reported on the final design presented to the University’s Board of Trustees. By that time the school’s population had again doubled to around 14,000 students and its facilities were overwhelmed3. As compensation, “the new buildings [were] designed…for almost double the present enrollment of the university,” a prophetic precaution considering today’s enrollment: 31,766 students4. Multi-story departmental buildings containing offices, laboratories, and classrooms would encircle campus quadrangles. A magnificent tower would crown the new campus along the Charles.
The Commonwealth Avenue side of the campus design. | Image republished with permission from the Howard Gottlieb Archival Research Center

Obviously, this grand campus was never built. A 2007 historical account published by Boston University explained it was “forced to scale back its plans in the late ’20s [because] the State Metropolitan District Commission used the right of eminent domain to claim the land nearest the river for the construction of Storrow Drive”[5]. Yet the pre-WWII highway was never built due to public protest. Storrow Drive wasn’t constructed until after the second World War to address traffic problems arising from increasing suburbanization[6]. Furthermore, the plans of 1928 clearly show the campus bounded by Bay State Road; none of the proposed structures would have intruded upon state property. The University’s explanation for the failed construction of the Alexander Graham Bell Tower does not make sense. It is unlikely that the proposed 1920′s Charles River Parkway disrupted construction. What was the real obstacle?
A likely explanation is found in the publication date of the Boston University News article: October 24, 1928. Exactly one year later came Black Monday and the Great Crash. I haven’t discovered how the depression directly affected the University’s finances. I do know the grand plans for campus rode along a wave of excess and easy credit. I do know that with the economic implosion, enrollment dropped precipitously and resulted in a period of severe austerity for the University. This, much more than an unbuilt highway, seems the most likely reason for postponing construction of the Charles River Campus and abandoning the Alexander Graham Bell Tower.
Arial diagram of the campus complex. | Image republished with permission from the Howard Gottlieb Archival Research Center

Although the tower was never built, it has an obvious contemporary analog. The construction of the John Hancock Student Village was another monumental undertaking for the University. The construction of Student Village Phase II (StuVi2), a 26-story steel skyscraper, was another architectural imposition upon Boston’s skyline. Construction of a third tower (StuVi3) was halted due to the 2008 crash and recession. Another display of BU’s prominence that rode another wave of excess and easy credit, the Student Village is a spiritual sibling to the unbuilt tower.
Campus construction has made the 1920′s master plan obsolete. The campus is still decentralized; it is a mile-long riverside strip instead of a densely packed complex. Still, remnants of BU’s past are scattered throughout campus. Scraping away the layers of history reveal the idealism and ambition of a university at the start of the twentieth century. By comparing the campus that is to the campus that could have been, we can better understand the ambitions of the school we call home.
A proposed campus design, as seen from above the BU Bridge. | Image republished with permission from the Howard Gottlieb Archival Research Center

~
I would like to thank the Howard Gottlieb Archival Research Center for free access to their materials and assistance.
Citations:
1 2 3 “Trustees View New Campus Plans.” Boston University News 24 Oct. 1928. Print.
4 “Boston University.” Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation. Web. 28 Apr. 2012. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boston_University>.
5 ”Between the World Wars.” History. Boston University. Web. 28 Apr. 2012. <http://web.archive.org/web/20071212022404/http://www.bu.edu/visit/about/history/betweenwars.html>.
6 Seasholes, Nancy S. “Storrow Drive.” Gaining Ground: A History of Landmaking in Boston. Cambridge, MA: MIT, 2003. 206. Print.
 
Fascinating, but the implication in the article that this campus could have met all of BU's current space needs is fatuous at best.
 
czsz said:
Fascinating, but the implication in the article that this campus could have met all of BU's current space needs is fatuous at best.
Click to expand...

Also, many of the original BU buildings look somewhat worse for wear due to all the window A/C units poking out. It's a shame it wasn't built though. Similar to the original plan for BC in that a full build-out of the original plan would have been much more impressive than the piecemeal styles that came later.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top